Is Bush a Fascist yet?

Akrasia

In a new white house proposal, Bush announced his intention to greatly expand the juristiction of military courts and to change the conditions under which military trials would be conducted. These new proposals come after the U.S. supreme court ruled the trials at Guantanamo Bay unconstiutional.

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

So basically, this law would apply to international terrorists, and absolutely everyone else.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

So basically the proposals will water down the burdon of proof, facilitate lengthy internment without trial and allow torture as a legitimate interview technique. So far, so fascist

Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets.

does this mean the law could be applied to the journalists who report on 'extraordinary rendition' or the U.S. policy of monitoring international bank transfers?

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

This legislation may or may not pass as a law, and even if it does, it may well be ruled unconstitutional, but the very fact that these proposals are being put forward for serious consideration must demonstrate the extremism that now exists in the White House from the Bush/Cheney administration and the republican party in general

Hobbes

Akrasia wrote:

but the very fact that these proposals are being put forward for serious consideration must demonstrate the extremism that now exists in the White House from the Bush/Cheney administration and the republican party in general

I would of thought the fact that Bush has ignored over 750 laws so far and hasn't been pulled up on it would also be a hint.

Akrasia

yeah, there's more than one sign.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

So basically the proposals will water down the burdon of proof, facilitate lengthy internment without trial and allow torture as a legitimate interview technique. So far, so fascist

I would have said it sounded more Communist, tbh.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

I would have said it sounded more Communist, tbh.

Well, it's totalitarian, which is a feature of fascism. Bush's priority for big business over the welfare of his people means he is certainly not communist, and corporatism is a central feature of fascism.

tba

Not just yet, he has to start wearing military unifroms in public first

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Bush88 4eva

Zeeech Heil

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

Well, it's totalitarian, which is a feature of fascism. Bush's priority for big business over the welfare of his people means he is certainly not communist, and corporatism is a central feature of fascism.

Do you actually know what corporatism is?

Akrasia

tba wrote:

Not just yet, he has to start wearing military unifroms in public first

does this count?

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you actually know what corporatism is?

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..
Corporatism is basically where institutions governed by corporations control large parts of government, and this is exactly what Bush has set up in the U.S. through his pattern of political appointments. He has handed almost every government department to the spokespeople for the relevant corporations.
It's all explained in detail in Greg Palast's latest book, 'Armed Madhouse'

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..

...even if you do say so yourself

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..
Corporatism is basically where institutions governed by corporations control large parts of government, and this is exactly what Bush has set up in the U.S. through his pattern of political appointments. He has handed almost every government department to the spokespeople for the relevant corporations.
It's all explained in detail in Greg Palast's latest book, 'Armed Madhouse'

You're confusing corporatism with corporation.

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

You're confusing corporatism with corporation.

no I'm not. Do you want me to look it up?

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.

from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

no I'm not. Do you want me to look it up?

It might help if you read it. Also I would not entirely agree with Wikipedia entire analysis, but that's probably a seperate point.

Akrasia

which part do you believe i have misinterpreted?

The Corinthian

The bit in bold for a start. Also how you've misinterpreted that "civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups" may only mean business corporations.

Akrasia

the corporate assemblies are not the same as the corporations, but they represent their interests exclusively.
And In bush's america, I'm not talking about lobby groups, i'm talking about the fact that Bush has appointed more than 100 corporate lobbyiests as industry regulators
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm

That is the essence of corporatism

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

the corporate assemblies are not the same as the corporations, but they represent their interests exclusively.

Incorrect. Even in Fascist Italy of the twenties and thirties it was not as simple as that as it was influenced not only by industry but also the military, landowners and the Church. Other, later, incarnations of corporatism have drawn from differing groups including academia and trade unions. Indeed, corporatism is alive and well in the Seanad.

What you’re discussing is so-called neo-corporatism, which is at best plutocracy labelled as corporatism and at worst an anti-globalisation invention.

I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Incorrect. Even in Fascist Italy of the twenties and thirties it was not as simple as that as it was influenced not only by industry but also the military, landowners and the Church. Other, later, incarnations of corporatism have drawn from differing groups including academia and trade unions. Indeed, corporatism is alive and well in the Seanad.

What you’re discussing is so-called neo-corporatism, which is at best plutocracy labelled as corporatism and at worst an anti-globalisation invention.

I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

In America the military and the Church (or the christian right) play a huge part too.

Neo-Corporatism is only possible in a country with highly organised labour, and america is certainly not that country, it requires tripartite negotiations between the State, Labour and Corporations. In todays america, Unions have been defeated and the state only exists to give corporations a veil of legitimacy and an army through which to enforce their demands. All functions of a state are being turned over to corporations, Education, Healthcare, Social Security etc. And the pace of this transition has accelerated massively since Bush took power. (social security could be privatised by 07 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/31/boehner-privatization/)

Tom65

OP, do you have a link for all that?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

In America the military and the Church (or the christian right) play a huge part too.

Are you now changing your argument? A moment ago you were claiming that it was all down to business corporations.

As I said, I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you now changing your argument? A moment ago you were claiming that it was all down to business corporations.

As I said, I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

I'm not changing my position, your objections are based on semantics and not the substantive issue. The Military industrial complex is basically the privatisation of the U.S. military, And in America, there is no powerful church like there was in Italy or Fascist Spain, evangalist christians are decentralised to local churches who are exploited by the Politicians and corporate evangalists like Pat Robertson and his 700 club and 'Christian Coalition'

The situation in america is not going to be an exact copy of anythin that went before it, but that doesn't mean it's not Corporatism.

Mick86

Is Bush a Fascist yet?

In 2009, GWB will be an ex-President. That never happens to fascists.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

I'm not changing my position, your objections are based on semantics and not the substantive issue.

Not semantics - facts. You’ve actually yet to refute any of them, I may add.

The Military industrial complex is basically the privatisation of the U.S. military

The very opposite of corporatism, oddly enough.

And in America, there is no powerful church like there was in Italy or Fascist Spain, evangalist christians are decentralised to local churches who are exploited by the Politicians and corporate evangalists like Pat Robertson and his 700 club and 'Christian Coalition'

Irrelevant. Pressure and lobby groups do not denote a corporate state and unless you want to show us where these religious groups are being put in direct charge of government, you are simply ranting.

The situation in america is not going to be an exact copy of anythin that went before it, but that doesn't mean it's not Corporatism.

That it is not actually corporatism is what makes it not. I’ve already pointed out how this is the case repeatedly.

Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about.

Dave!

It's off-topic, the thread is asking "is Bush a fascist", not "how would you define corporatism"... and you've spent 7 posts doing the latter.

The Corinthian

DaveMcG wrote:

It's off-topic, the thread is asking "is Bush a fascist", not "how would you define corporatism"... and you've spent 7 posts doing the latter.

This thread is based upon a sweeping statement that is being challenged, so while it may be pedantic to debate corporatism, it’s certainly not off-topic.

If, on the other hand, this thread had been titled “let’s whine about how much we hate Bush for a few pointless pages” you would be correct.

The mods will decide what is and isnt off topic here.
Any more in thread discussion on what is or isnt off topic will get a 1 week ban.
Use the report the post function if you want to complain.

As for the debate so far,it's drumming along nicely.
If people arent able to address Tc's points,then say so.
Comparatives are being used and are quite valid from what I can see.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

This thread is based upon a sweeping statement that is being challenged, so while it may be pedantic to debate corporatism, it’s certainly not off-topic.

If, on the other hand, this thread had been titled “let’s whine about how much we hate Bush for a few pointless pages” you would be correct.

so what do you think about Bush's proposed legislation. Is it just whining to be alarmed at the direction he is pursuing?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

so what do you think about Bush's proposed legislation. Is it just whining to be alarmed at the direction he is pursuing?

Certainly people, Americans in particular, should be very much alarmed by much of the legislation he’s putting through.

Calling him a Fascist is whining though.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Certainly people, Americans in particular, should be very much alarmed by much of the legislation he’s putting through.

Calling him a Fascist is whining though.

I would suggest that calling other people whiners for pointing out the totalitarian tendancies of the so called leader of the free world is also a form of whining

oscarBravo

Enough. Discuss the topic at hand, not whether other posters are whining.

Sgt. Sensible

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce"

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Enough. Discuss the topic at hand, not whether other posters are whining.

At the risk of further chastisement, banning, and so on and so forth....I believe there is a (badly put) case to make that they are one and the same thing.

The labelling of Bush as a fascist is not - in my opinion - because Bush is a fascist. Similarly, the US is not a fascist State, nor is the US government a fascist-oriented government.

There are some points of similarity, I grant you, but if Bush is more totalitarian, why don't we say "Bush is taking the US in an undesireably totalitarian direction", rather than the more-commonly offered line of reasoning which "totalitarianism is a facet of fascism (amongst other things), and Bush has exhibited some totalitarianistic tendencies.....therefore Bush is a fascist!!!".

Increasingly, when I see labels being applied my immediate reaction is to suspect that the label will be used to attack whatever has been labelled. Its as though Bush's specific actions aren't a suitable line of attack....we have to label those actions as being fascist in nature, and then attack him for being fascist.

I dunno...maybe its our 5-microsecond attention spans that are to blame. Maybe people would stop paying attention if we actually discussed the relative merits and drawbacks of individual actions. Maybe it would require too much knowledge. Maybe its intellectual laziness, or frustration at "the other side" using such tactics to great success.

Regardless of the reason, it seems to me (at least) that discussion like this typically serve one purpose, and thats to simplify the manner in which a target is complained about. Why worry about the details when we can just decry everything and anything as "more fascism from the fascist Bush".

jc

Hobbes

Mick86 wrote:

In 2009, GWB will be an ex-President. That never happens to fascists.

Unless he changes the laws? Seriously, hes lied and ignored/steamrolled over so many laws I just wonder how far he could push it before US citizens actually tried to remove him from his position.

I'd put even money that if he was to say he would remain in power and got the backing from the rest of the republican controlled areas of government that your average US citizen would still sit on their ass. They might moan about it but all in all do feck all.

Anyway thing with with the US is that you end up with two people to vote on and if you delved deep into Bush/Kerry for example you would find they agree on a lot of things.

And the two party system is so bad that in the Kerry/Bush presidential debates two of the other runners for president actually got arrested trying to turn up to debate.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Unless he changes the laws? Seriously, hes lied and ignored/steamrolled over so many laws I just wonder how far he could push it before US citizens actually tried to remove him from his position.

In fairness, I can't see SCOTUS rolling over and playing a good little doggie on any such change.

I'd put even money that if he was to say he would remain in power and got the backing from the rest of the republican controlled areas of government that your average US citizen would still sit on their ass. They might moan about it but all in all do feck all.

And I'd put even money on a return bet that regardless of what Joe Q Sixpack did at home we'd still see something like the following.

Bush : "I am the Decider, and I've Decided that I need to remain in power for top-secret reasons that I can't tell anyone. But seeing as I'm in charge, I get to make the decisions."

Supreme Court : "Go **** yourself, Mr. President. This is one area where you most certainly aren't the decider, we are. And we've decided that you are limited to two terms like the law says."

What would be really interesting is to see what would happen then.

Anyway thing with with the US is that you end up with two people to vote on and if you delved deep into Bush/Kerry for example you would find they agree on a lot of things.

This is, at least partly, the voters' own fault. By retaining a steadfast belief that it is a two-party system, and that a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, they doom the system to remain two-party.

And god forbid anyone suggest that voters do what they always criticise politicians for, and stop looking at just the next term of office. If it takes 50 years to build up momentum in terms of people voting for a third party, then it takes 50 years. Sooner started, sooner done.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

In fairness, I can't see SCOTUS rolling over and playing a good little doggie on any such change.

I can see them disagreeing and Bush just saying "So what?". Or changing the laws to bypass them as that is what is happening with gitmo.

What would be really interesting is to see what would happen then.

Joked about this one time. But imagine you where the president of the United States and you wanted it to become a dictatorship.

First up you would have to control most of the government and enact enough laws to protect yourself.

Second you would need the Army on your side. But failing that you would just need the majority of the army on your side. If there was a way to move any possible resistance force out of the country (say a few wars) you could leave a core group of "Royal Guard" as it where.

As long as joe sixpack is kept happy most people will be like sheep. Americans are very into "My constitutional rights" so as long as you dance around that (either laws or a bug-a-boo like terrorists) they will pretty much fall into line.

After that is businesses. Big businesses you give kickbacks while using protectionism to make it feel like this isn't all one big mistake.

Lastly embezzle as much as you can from the country (rape it clean) and then finally leave.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote:

At the risk of further chastisement, banning, and so on and so forth....I believe there is a (badly put) case to make that they are one and the same thing.

The labelling of Bush as a fascist is not - in my opinion - because Bush is a fascist. Similarly, the US is not a fascist State, nor is the US government a fascist-oriented government.

There are some points of similarity, I grant you, but if Bush is more totalitarian, why don't we say "Bush is taking the US in an undesireably totalitarian direction", rather than the more-commonly offered line of reasoning which "totalitarianism is a facet of fascism (amongst other things), and Bush has exhibited some totalitarianistic tendencies.....therefore Bush is a fascist!!!".

Increasingly, when I see labels being applied my immediate reaction is to suspect that the label will be used to attack whatever has been labelled. Its as though Bush's specific actions aren't a suitable line of attack....we have to label those actions as being fascist in nature, and then attack him for being fascist.

I dunno...maybe its our 5-microsecond attention spans that are to blame. Maybe people would stop paying attention if we actually discussed the relative merits and drawbacks of individual actions. Maybe it would require too much knowledge. Maybe its intellectual laziness, or frustration at "the other side" using such tactics to great success.

Regardless of the reason, it seems to me (at least) that discussion like this typically serve one purpose, and thats to simplify the manner in which a target is complained about. Why worry about the details when we can just decry everything and anything as "more fascism from the fascist Bush".

jc

labels are a function of language, they are necessary in order to communicate concepts in the most efficient manner. If i say the word 'Chair' it doesn't describe any particular set design, it could have 2 legs, 4 legs, it could hang from a tree, it could have a back or no back, it could be a bucket shape or a bench shape, but if it's function is for use as something to sit on, then it is a chair.
Sure you can argue about whether it's a stool or a seat or a swing or a bench, but that's just pointless semantics, if I say chair, you know it means something people can sit on.

The use of the word Fascist here is another shortcut to communicate the idea of someone to the 'far right' with 'totalitarian' tendancies who supports the idea of a police state and who uses his power and influence to promote the interests of big business above the welfare of ordinary citizens.
Of course, in that last sentence, there were also a number of other labels, 'far right', 'Totalitarian' 'police state', 'big business' which could all be argued based on semantics, but which are generally understood to have certain connotations by those who are politically aware. As different labels are used together and in context with each other, we arrive at a communicable idea that is more than just the ideas taken individually with no context.

Bush might not fulfil every single criteria necessary to be labled a fascist in the strictest sense, but in terms of putting across the idea about the kinds of things he is capable of doing, it is a useful label.

Bush here is used to describe his party and the rest of his administration, it is arguable that George Bush himself is in charge, or if he is merely a figure head

dave2pvd

Hobbes wrote:

As long as joe sixpack is kept happy most people will be like sheep. Americans are very into "My constitutional rights" so as long as you dance around that (either laws or a bug-a-boo like terrorists) they will pretty much fall into line.

Most voting Americans also have a healthy disregard of government, particularly on a federal level. Increased federal powers would not be welcome to many here. Especially amongst the Republican/Libertarian types.

And in America, there is no powerful church like there was in Italy or Fascist Spain....

Don't believe it for a moment. Perhaps church groups are somewhat decentralised, but keep in mind that there are entire Southern and Midwestern states that vote along lines dictated by the Christian Coallition (and there are Northern states that will heavily support their local labour union).

Bush : "I am the Decider, and I've Decided that I need to remain in power for top-secret reasons that I can't tell anyone. But seeing as I'm in charge, I get to make the decisions."

Supreme Court : "Go **** yourself, Mr. President. This is one area where you most certainly aren't the decider, we are. And we've decided that you are limited to two terms like the law says."

And that's exactly how that scenario would play out. Well put.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

labels are a function of language, they are necessary in order to communicate concepts in the most efficient manner.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that all uses of labels are accurate, nor even necessary.

Labels are only efficient when there is no question about what the label signifies - when they are accurate.

When there is doubt and/or the meaning of the label is open to interpretation, then the use of a label does not communicate a concept efficiently (in fact, it adds to the inefficiency). At this point, one should question what the purpose of using the label is....which is what I am doing.

The use of the word Fascist here is another shortcut to communicate the idea of someone to the 'far right' with 'totalitarian' tendancies who supports the idea of a police state and who uses his power and influence to promote the interests of big business above the welfare of ordinary citizens.

If you set out by clarifying what you meant fascist to be at the start, then there would be no question that you see Bush as a fascist.

The question then, however, would be whether or not your definition of what constitutes a fascist is a generally accurate one. If not, then your use of the label would be removing efficiency and would therefore have to be questioned.

Its a bit like when I get into conversations about ID, or various conspiracy theories. I take a very critical view of anyone misapplying the label "scientific". They (i.e. those using the label) may well believe what they are labelling is, in fact, scientific, but its not a label thats open to much interpretation and its not about personal belief.

Once its clear there's a difference of opinion on the suitability of a label all efficiency-based arguments for using the label are gone. If it is not efficient nomenclature, there must be alternate reasons for people persisting in its use at this point. I can think of three :

1) They're correct and can show it to be so without question
1) They're incorrect, but refuse to admit it.
2) They're incorrect but wish to utilise the association with other traits of that label, regardless of correctness.

Note, that when two people disagree on the suitability of a label, only one of them (at most) can fall into the first of these categories.

Bush might not fulfil every single criteria necessary to be labled a fascist in the strictest sense, but

No buts. Either he's a fascist or he's not.

If he doesn't meet all the criteria then he's on his way to becoming a fascist, or he exhibits some traits common to those of fascists, or whatever...but he's not a fascist.

in terms of putting across the idea about the kinds of things he is capable of doing, it is a useful label.

Sure its useful...it draws associations with Italy circa WW2, Mussolini and other aspects of history that will help cast him in an even worse light. Thats my point.

Utility and accuracy aren't the same thing. If - as you admit - the label isn't strictly accurate, then why not use a more accurate one? The answer is clear - the utility of the less accurate one is greater.

Isn't putting utility over accuracy a trait of the Bush administration? Is it really something we should be arguing in favour for?

Bush here is used to describe his party and the rest of his administration, it is arguable that George Bush himself is in charge, or if he is merely a figure head

Then why not use a more accurate label, such as "the Bush Administration"?

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

This is, at least partly, the voters' own fault. By retaining a steadfast belief that it is a two-party system, and that a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, they doom the system to remain two-party.

Coupled with this, first-past-the-post electoral systems tend to copperfasten two-party systems.

If you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.

Dirk Gently

I think people are putting a little too much emphasis on Bush. Why would the current republican administration risk the backlash of a failed move like trying to get Bush in for a third term when all that matters is that a neo-con gets the job? So long as a neo-con gets elected its business as usual. I don’t think the actual person matters a whole lot (once elected) as it’s the administration combined with its business backers who make the decisions. The president is just the public spokesperson of the larger more important group.


I seriously doubt GWB is pulling the strings or even if he has any meaningful input on policy over the other prominent neo-cons in the administration and the business world. Bush was simply the man most likely to get elected. Now its time to pick the next neo-con most likely to get elected. No need to do anything silly like get Bush a third term when it’s not necessary, especially with a Democratic Party unwilling or unable to put up a serious fight. I think fear, nationalism and choicepoint have the next election in the bag for the neo-cons regardless of who they put up. As for the question of is Bush a Fascist, I don't think you are going to see a text book example of a Fascist government in America but I think they are getting as close as they can to a modern acceptable hybrid they can get away with under the guise of freedom and liberty.

Hobbes

dave2pvd wrote:

Most voting Americans also have a healthy disregard of government, particularly on a federal level. Increased federal powers would not be welcome to many here.

True, but what are they going to do about it? A couple of protests maybe and then back to watching the boobtube and day to day life.

It would take some serious crap to polorize Americans to do anything about thier government. Especially when you look at all the crap he has done to date.

dave2pvd

Hobbes wrote:

...back to watching the boobtube and day to day life.

Well now....impressive stereotype. Must have taken a while to capture the caricature just so.

Keep in mind that when you generalise, you may be thinking Homer Simpson, rather than the voting classes/masses. There is quite a difference. Many of the voting types are somewhat informed. Joe Sixpack, on the otherhand doesn't vote.

I agree with posters suggesting that Bush is simply a puppet with strings pulled by others. This is very evident, especially now. The Senate/Congress have found the puppet to be remarkably expendible. A couple of months ago he seemed to be of lame duck status already - shockingly early for a US presidential term. He does not tend to enjoy congressional support for bills proposed by his administration. They are distancing themselves greatly from him.

Hobbes

dave2pvd wrote:

Well now....impressive stereotype. Must have taken a while to capture the caricature just so.

Well to be fair, take a look at what he has gotten up to date and what has been done in response to that. If Clinton had done one tenth of what Bush has done so far he would of had his head on a pole.

If it had been anyone except the president they would of been looking at a long prison sentance.

dave2pvd

It was your stereotype of Americans I was referring to.

Anyway, enough: back to Bush the Fascist Yeti.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

As for the question of is Bush a Fascist, I don't think you are going to see a text book example of a Fascist government in America but I think they are getting as close as they can to a modern acceptable hybrid they can get away with under the guise of freedom and liberty.

However this comparison fails as it is nowhere near “as close as they can to a modern acceptable hybrid”. This thread was begun with a commentary on a move that would, one can argue, reduce the power of law and move the US towards a more totalitarian system. To say that he is moving towards Fascism on the basis of this is as valid as saying that he’s moving towards Communism, or Theocracy, or absolute Monarchy, or any other system that will tend towards totalitarianism.

This is the problem with the very premise of this thread; it’s based upon a false analogy - a cliché.

Dirk Gently

The Corinthian wrote:

This is the problem with the very premise of this thread; it’s based upon a false analogy - a cliché.

Agreed, I think any further debate will just be bogged down in semantics and statements which could be equally true or false but sure we'll have a go anyway.

The Corinthian wrote:

However this comparison fails as it is nowhere near “as close as they can to a modern acceptable hybrid”. This thread was begun with a commentary on a move that would, one can argue, reduce the power of law and move the US towards a more totalitarian system. To say that he is moving towards Fascism on the basis of this is as valid as saying that he’s moving towards Communism, or Theocracy, or absolute Monarchy, or any other system that will tend towards totalitarianism..

Based on the narrow parameters of the OP, (i.e. one decision in isolation) it would of course be impossible to argue that the U.S. is moving towards Fascism but leaving aside the restricting of ourselves to the Original Post and instead looking at it as part of a definite pattern of events there is a debatable case on the direction of the U.S. government.

I think the level of influence and power in decision making at a political level of corporate bodies would rule out any kind of call for the “workers of the world unite” or a change towards a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Profit is very much the motivator as opposed to a centrally planned economy. I know you like to cross your t’s and dot your i’s but I seriously doubt America is moving towards any kind of communist egalitarian system. Like I said it’s unlikely that there will be a text book case of anything seen in the past, all you can do is call it as it is and point out similarities or leanings to past systems in an attempt to put a direction on the current administration.

What we have in America today is a self styled neo-conservative government. Anything we do in this thread trying to put a past label on them is simply pointing out similarities. It is a very right wing government who believe strongly in neo-liberal economics and aggressively push that agenda world wide. They have an effective control on their citizens, using fear and nationalism to push through authoritarian big brother type laws and use it to increase military spending and pre-emptive military action abroad while encouraging its citizens to spy on each other and report anything they feel is “un-American” or against national interests. Propaganda, surveillance and fear are widely used by the government to monitor and influence its citizens. It’s not hard to see why the Fascist label gets thrown around as there are similarities but it is not the same thing IMO.


Many people will come up with many definitions of what fascism is and why one government is or is not fascist. Most of it is semantics, arguing as to what degree a government must go to in order to earn the label fascist. Ultimately each person is going to decide for him/herself on what they decide to call fascist as I don’t think there is one generally accepted definition which hasn’t being challenged on what qualifies as a fascist state. People will argue as to what degree corporatism must take place and what the intention of that form of corporatism is. People will argue about what is deemed authoritarian and also to what degree democracy has been eroded. I personally think America has a lot of fascist characteristics but I think that the corporate influence is more designed for private individualistic gain more so than to fulfil a grand State controlled regime. It just so happens that the state is exerting more control as a necessity to secure the corporations goals. It could be viewed as an opposite ideology or as achieving the same ends despite having a different agenda. Is corporatism enough or must the goals of corporatism be examined.

Some commonly accepted characteristics of fascism: corporatism, authoritarian government, dictatorship, racism/ intolerance, use of fear and nationalism as a way to control citizens, an emphasis put on the state as opposed to the individual, crushing of any opposition usually through force.

Are economics central criteria for a fascist state or is fascism a loose term applied to a state which roughly fits most of the commonly held characteristics I outlined above?

Is the Mussolini model the only correct form of Fascism and if so how likely is it ever to be replicated exactly?

If the Mussolini model was the original but not strictly the only form of Fascism then to what degree can the conditions be different but still fall under the term “fascist”?

If you believe the Mussolini model to be only one form of fascism, why do you believe that other models can also be described as fascist? What are the criteria and are those criteria universally accepted or even commonly accepted to be fascist?


I’m sure you the Corinthian will have your own view which you will no doubt lay out in a very logical and definite manor but inevitably someone else will challenge your view and my view and come up with their own definition. This definition will in turn be challenged by someone else and people will argue about what aspects of the current American administration fit their own definition. I am happy enough to say that America is not a fascist country in the same way as Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany but I am comfortable in saying that it does share some fascist characteristics (more so than most countries) and that the question of whether America is becoming a fascist state depends entirely on which criteria you lay down as once achieved is deemed fascist.

This was Mussolini’s definition of fascism which he wrote in 1932 for the Italian Encyclopaedia.
Looking at that definition semantics, pedantry and personal opinion will play a large part in applying parts or all of it to the current American administration.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

People will argue as to what degree corporatism must take place and what the intention of that form of corporatism is.

It would help if you knew what corporatism was. I’ve already pointed out how the simplistic definition of corporatism as a form of plutocracy is factually incorrect.

Some commonly accepted characteristics of fascism: corporatism, authoritarian government, dictatorship, racism/ intolerance, use of fear and nationalism as a way to control citizens, an emphasis put on the state as opposed to the individual, crushing of any opposition usually through force.

Most of those ‘accepted characteristics’ could be attached to Communism - certainly authoritarian government, dictatorship, use of fear and nationalism are alive and well in North Korea or Cuba today. Also racism was only a characteristic of Nazi-influenced Fascism. Up until Italy became politically dominated by Germany it was no more racist than Britain or France. Spanish and Argentinean Fascism likewise.

But even if your ‘accepted characteristics’ were correct I would find it bizarre that you would try to apply them to the US. The present reality is so far removed - even if you are claiming that things are moving in that direction - that it makes the analogy preposterous.

I am happy enough to say that America is not a fascist country in the same way as Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany but I am comfortable in saying that it does share some fascist characteristics (more so than most countries) and that the question of whether America is becoming a fascist state depends entirely on which criteria you lay down as once achieved is deemed fascist.

Then by your same logic, Cuba can be said to share many characteristics with National Socialism and Chavez with Hitler.

Dirk Gently

As I said you are simply applying your own views to your own definition and questioning other definitions. I can't argue with that to an absolute and neither can you. - Semantics.

What is a true definition of fascism, who decides?
Are North Korea and Cuba communist, who decides?
Is racism a characteristic of fascism or simply a tool employed when necessary but its absence is not important, who decides?
What were the differences between German, Italian, Spanish, Argentine and Chilean fascism? Where they all fascist or did some of them fall short of the criteria.

I don't actually think we have a difference of opinion here as I am asking what exactly is fascism and what is necessary to label a country fascist. If you can provide me with an absolute universal definition of fascism then we can easily match or dismiss the relevance to the current American administration.

The belief in fascism that history is not a collection of class struggles would rule out the likes of Chavez and Castro as fascists. Also the use of direct democracy and worker controlled co operatives would rule out fascism but again it all depends on which criteria you choose to hand pick and apply to a situation while leaving out others. When is something simply totalitarian and not fascist and again to what degree and for what agenda must corporations play a role in the running of the state for that state to be deemed fascist. What is the cut off point between personal freedom and state control?

I’ve read your wiki link to corporatism which a few posts later you then said you didn’t entirely agree with. Again it comes down to interpretation and which bits you choose to apply to a given scenario. Is the fact that corporatism takes place at a limited level or as an absolute relevant and if so at what point is it deemed fascist or of having fascist characteristics or of been similar but not the same as fascism.

I repeat again that to call America a fascist state is pushing it a bit and is somewhat a weak definition of fascism but IMO it does have similar characteristics to previous fascist states more so than other countries. This does not make it fascist and it is probably way off been fascist but again without a clear definition which is universally accepted there is no way of saying absolutely either way, just as we cannot say absolutely with other states either. It all depends on your interpretation of what fascism is.

I would be interested to know what your accepted characteristics of fascism are, and I don't mean that as to use a stick to beat you with but rather just out of interest to add to the many other definitions I've read from various other sources. Is it a rigid system or is it open to interpetation.

bonkey

clown bag wrote:

I don't actually think we have a difference of opinion here as I am asking what exactly is fascism and what is necessary to label a country fascist.

The definition of the former (fascism), and the illustration that a country meets that definition should be the what is necessary for the latter (labelling a nation).

The thing is that if we use some loose cuddly definition of fascism, then sure...we can make pretty-much any nation out to be fascist. Of course, this doesn't mean much, and associating them all together under one umbrella becomes meaningless.

Its like saying that we can call all totalitarian leaders "Hitleresque", and that we can say Bush qualifies because he's leaning in a slightly totalitarian direction. Of course, at that point, it becomes clear that our definition is so loose that we're desperately just trying to associate anyone we don't like with Hitler....and that little if anything should be read into the grouping.

There is (rightly or wrongly) a general belief that fascism is a Uniformly Bad Thing. Most typically, it seems to stem from WW2 roots. It is rare to see someone labelling anything as fascist where the intent is anything other than to draw parallels to Germany/Italy in the 1940s.

So to go back to the original question - Is Bush a fascist? No. Is the Bush Administration fascist? No. Is the US fascist? No.

In all cases, the answer is No unless we use a definition of fascism which is so loose that we should be obliged to say "yes/maybe, but not in the same sense that Italy was fascist in the mid-20th century" as opposed to "yes".

When is something simply totalitarian and not fascist

Such questions are exactly why I believe the use of the label is invalid in terms of providing a handy method of classification/grouping. If you have to ask such questions in order to understand what, exactly, is this short-cut description supposed to be a shortening of....then the benefit of it is lost.

I’ve read your wiki link to corporatism which a few posts later you then said you didn’t entirely agree with. Again it comes down to interpretation and which bits you choose to apply to a given scenario.

Only if you can show that the definition you're working off is at least arguably accurate as well.

I could say, for example, that Tikopia is the perfect embodiment of my understanding of corporatism. Of course, my understanding is based on me making up a definition and then saying that its just as valid as anyone else's, whereas TC seems to be arguing from a far more solid basis of being able to provide a simple-to-reference definition which - while not perfect - is a good starting point.

Thus far, everyone disagreeing with him has offered as much clarification of why their understanding of what corporatism is as I have (if you ignore that i've admitted I just made mine up).

I find it difficult to accept as a valid argument the notion that its really just down to what you think it means, unless you can show that yoru understanding is at least derived from a widely-accepted definition of the term.

Is the fact that corporatism takes place at a limited level or as an absolute relevan

The fact that it occurs needs to be first established.

t and if so at what point is it deemed fascist or of having fascist characteristics or of been similar but not the same as fascism.

I would say that one would need to show a correlation with the degree that ir occurs/occurred in other fascist states, or explain why such a correlation is not needed.

I repeat again that to call America a fascist state is pushing it a bit

Its amazing how often you hear it though....do you think that a huge number of people simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism is?

but IMO it does have similar characteristics to previous fascist states more so than other countries.

Really? I'd question that, to be honest.

To me, its like people calling the US a police-state. Sure, it is correct to say it has characteristics of a police-state, and moreso than some other nations (say, Ireland) does....

Its also correct to say that a burn caused from oil spattering from the cooker has more in common with losing a limb from 3rd-degree burns than a slight dose of sunburn does. In this case, however, the distance from what two things are being compared (oil-splatter burn and sunburn) and our frame of reference (limb-loss through third-degree burns) is clear...and clearly ridiculous.

This does not make it fascist and it is probably way off been fascist but again without a clear definition which is universally accepted there is no way of saying absolutely either way, just as we cannot say absolutely with other states either. It all depends on your interpretation of what fascism is.

Without a universally-accepted definition, then one can say with authority that it does not meet any univerally-accepted definition of fascism.

jc

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

However this comparison fails as it is nowhere near “as close as they can to a modern acceptable hybrid”. This thread was begun with a commentary on a move that would, one can argue, reduce the power of law and move the US towards a more totalitarian system. To say that he is moving towards Fascism on the basis of this is as valid as saying that he’s moving towards Communism, or Theocracy, or absolute Monarchy, or any other system that will tend towards totalitarianism.

This is the problem with the very premise of this thread; it’s based upon a false analogy - a cliché.

Can you point to the sentence in the first post that indicates that his proposed bill was the only factor in determining that Bush was a fascist? I never suggested that his desire to eliminate the principles of fair defence and justice before law was the only reason i believe his administration to have fascist tendencies, it was just the latest move in long and always downward spiral.
Do you accept the 14 point indicator of fascism that Milton Mayer wrote about Germany in 1955? (or are you going to go off in a tangent about Germany not being fascist because they were Nazis instead)
those 14 points are:

1.

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.

Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.

Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.

Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.

Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8.

Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.

Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.

Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14.

Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

And here is a link that shows the Bush administrating enthusiastically embracing each one of those principles
http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm